Search

The objective of this paper is to manifest the intellectual and cognitive structure of CORINE Land Cover (CLC) research applications. Data from the Web of Science (WoS) was used to delimit publication on CLC during the period from 1985 until 2019 (29th April), retrieving a total of 873 documents. Through author citations, the origins and the most influential papers were identified. The main lines of research were identified from word co-occurrences extracted from the titles, keywords, and abstracts of the papers. In the view of both structures, it can be concluded that CORINE land cover constitutes a relatively young set of scientific data, with a constant expansion and a strongly interdisciplinary structure. The development of this application is dependent on the knowledge of such research areas as geography, remote sensing, ecology, forestry, agriculture, engineering, optics, and/or computer science. We believe that this information could be very useful for CLC users, as it reflects a large-scale analysis of the research lines of CLC and illuminates how research has changed over time in diverse areas of applications. Moreover, this study is intended to offer a useful tool for the CLC scientific community, showcasing the main research lines and the most noteworthy papers. Finally, the methodology used in this study can be replicated in many other fields of science to explore its intellectual and cognitive structure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

3D printing has been adopted into routine use for certain medical applications, but more widespread usage has been hindered by, among other things, unclear legislation. We performed an analysis, using legal doctrinal study and legal informatics, of relevant EU legislation and case law in four issues relevant to medical 3D printing (excluding bioprinting or pharmacoprinting): pre-market approval, post-market liability, intellectual property rights, and data protection. Several gaps and uncertainties in the current legislation and interpretations were identified. In particular, we regard the current EU regulatory framework to be quite limiting and inflexible, exemplifying a cautionary approach common in EU law. Though the need to establish high safety standards in order to protect patients as a disadvantaged population is understood, both legal uncertainties and overregulation are seen as harmful to innovation. Hence, more adaptive legislation is called for to ensure continuous innovation efforts and enhanced patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]